netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:14:32 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	pmoore@...hat.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, mvadkert@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK
 packet

From: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:09:32 -0400

> On Monday, April 08, 2013 01:55:01 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> At least my patch clearly _shows_ the security requirement, instead of
>> relying on a side effect of a previous sock_wmalloc()
> 
> I don't see it as a side effect, and as far as demonstration, I think the 
> SELinux network access controls in their entirety shows the security 
> requirement.  If we want to make the security requirements even more explicit 
> in the networking stack, let's add a security blob to the sk_buff and allow 
> some proper LSM hooks.

You don't get it.

Without LSM there is no need to use sock_wmalloc() or to have a socket
context attacked to the SYN/ACK packet at all.

Therefore, the need should be explicit (Eric's approach), rather than
implicit (what you seem to be after).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html